Water powered Vehicles.

I see so the idea is to effectively burn extra carbon. Fine, as far as the energy concervation goes, this is plausible. But then you'll be driving with a trunk full of coal fuel, of course

Originally posted by Aelita
I see so the idea is to effectively burn extra carbon. Fine, as far as the energy concervation goes, this is plausible. But then you'll be driving with a trunk full of coal fuel, of course

Coal is only about 60% carbon, the easiest way to make 99% pure carbon is to react granulated sugar with sulfuric acid.

Read this site: www.blazelabs.com...

It's not possible to run a combustion engine in a closed loop because of the efficiency problem associated with that. However, the site claims that you can get 150% efficiency when burning the fuel with an air mixture. With a steam turbine engine it could be possible to run it in a closed loop.

EDIT:
That site is really odd though, I'd like to try this myself.

[edit on 8/24/2004 by shbaz]

The site claims "overunity". It sounds like non-conservation of energy. It also states that the process is "probably beyond our scientific knowledge".

Sounds like crap to me.

Originally posted by Aelita
The site claims "overunity". It sounds like non-conservation of energy. It also states that the process is "probably beyond our scientific knowledge".

Sounds like crap to me.

To me it seems like they just have no idea what they're talking about but the fuel is potentially useful.

Originally posted by Aelita
The site claims "overunity". It sounds like non-conservation of energy. It also states that the process is "probably beyond our scientific knowledge".

Sounds like crap to me.

Aelita why don't you try to build it yourself. The websites I posted aren't selling anything(so in my mind theres a good chance its not a hoax, but they could have botched their numbers somhow) so I think people should swallow their skeptism for a minute and try out the experiments themselves. I am still working on my model, I'm not trying to create a closed loop, but I am going to get a chem analysis done on it. I just talked to a Chemist at the UofT and she seemed....well to put it bluntly excited. Remeber all the current Theories we have about the Universe are wrong. Yup your right they're wrong. If they were right then every theoretical physicist would be out of a job, but as we all know thats not the case.

Aquafuel has been analized by 2 respected insitutions
Briggs and Stratton and NASA



BTW This is the approx design I'm going with to do my emissions and HP tests to figure out wether or not its Overunity.

I don't dispute the usefullness of the H2, CO and O2 mix, I just dispute the usefullness of wasting energy vie the intermediate process of producing the gas.

If you read carefull the site they are referring to, the MAGNEFUEL, there is a lightyears difference. The Magne people try to process liquid waste (which is sewage, read feces) by using a high temperature arc. They decompose the organic matter, at a significant expense of energy, and get H2 and carbon, plus runoff sterilized water. This will definitely work.

But you can't install this in your car! It consumes a few times the energy needed for car propulsion and should be considered an exotic form of waste disposal.

It's funny how someone throughout history has always said something CAN'T be done. The Wright brothers can't fly! Edison can't produce light from electricity! Get my point?

Like I said before; Never say never!

If people listen to others that say something can't be done then nothing will advance. Everything will stay the same.

The people that stall the advancement of knowlege are the people that subscribe to the position that if the general consensus says something is supposed to work a certain way then that is the way it should be.

Those people that think a person without a degree for instance, can't contribute to the advancement of science because they don't have a formal education in the field sometimes put others down because of that.

Those people that think something wont work because it doesn't meet the current theory at the time wont even listen to a theory that doesn't fit within those rules and say it must be a scam or a hoax because it can't work because everyone says it can't.

A person serious about something they're working on can't even get funding through the public sector if it involves over unity because it is generally accepted that anyone working on such things is most likely off their rocker. Think God or the Howard Hughes Institute and places like that that dont rely on public funding.

If you really believe you are onto something then never listen to those that say it can't be done. Always believe in you and never back down.


Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
It's funny how someone throughout history has always said something CAN'T be done. The Wright brothers can't fly! Edison can't produce light from electricity! Get my point?

No I don't. Nobody said Wright couldn't fly, and nobody said Edicon could not produce light by heating carbon fiber.

If you claim you have discovered non-conservation of energy, be prepared to back it up with measurements. I can assure you that this law was tested with some solid experimental work. I'm sorry, but the garage physisists are not up to snuff.

It's like me deciding to try brain surgery and my neighbor says it can't be done, I say screw it I'll go ahead anyway

Maybe I sould have also said I wasn't talking to anyone in general hence, Just my thoughts.

I don't have proof of over unity. If I did then I'd be on a beach on some exotic island right now with a few thousand dollar hookers! LOL I wouldn't be waiting on my next call to make a lost car key.

This is my edit. BTW many people have said throughout history something can't be done. Many people told the Wright brothers they couldn't fly. Many people told Edison he was crazy. Many of those were gas company reps.

Never say never. Maybe that would be a good signature for me?



[edit on 24-8-2004 by TexasConspiracyNut]

[edit on 24-8-2004 by TexasConspiracyNut]

TexasConspiracyNut, well said. If I had a Loonie for every time someone said somthing was impossible just because science says so I'd be freakin rich! (Allthough the Scientists are right more than they are wrong with these sorts of things and all the scientists I have talked too seemed rather interested as well.

But you can't install this in your car! It consumes a few times the energy needed for car propulsion and should be considered an exotic form of waste disposal.

Yeah I know you can't install it on you car, and the reason I'm using water is because it's not crap and alot easier(meaning less disgusting) to work with. I do agree that using water is only an intermediary step, in the development of this new Fuel Source(I would really like to see what this stuff does to Sweet Crude Oil), but for do-it yourselfers who like to tinker this is the perfect project! I can see a totally self-suffient way of doing it by setting up a reformer in your garage(if you have one) and use composting toilets and have it routed to the reformer. Then get a Car that can use pressurized gasous fuel , get a couple of pressurized propane tanks to store whatever Magnegas you do not use, and then when you need to refill your car you just hook up one of your pressurized tanks, filler up and then your ready to go. Sounds kinda easy, and really it is to set up a system for a Car or a small generator. The only tweak you gotta do to the Engine is reduce the amount of O2 mixture to about 5 parts for every 1 part of Magnegas. Of course I'm not doing this by myself and I have to raise a bit of financing(ie 2nd job but if it pans out no more relyling on the gas station!)

On a sorta off topic subject did you hear this bit of news?





[edit on 24-8-2004 by sardion2000]

The reason they talk about using it for cars is because you get a gas produced from water that will not escape its tank. If you do normal electrolysis you get O2 and H2. H2 will escape any enclosure because it is such a tiny molecule. H2CO will not (provided a proper tank) and will still combust with the other gases that form during the carbon-electrolysis process to form CO2, water, and other generally harmless gasses. It still forms some bad stuff, but when you compare it to gasoline IMO it is irrelevant. This is also superior to other gases like propane or methane because it can be generated at your home with easily available materials (carbon, water, electicity).

Obtaining 150% of your input electrical energy isn't infeasible when you consider that you are burning that carbon in a gaseous form along with the hydrogen and oxygen. Your fuel would actually be carbon, water, oxygen (air) and electricity. I believe that if the 150% figure is correct, it can be done in a closed system, though the energy output would be pretty low.

With a steam and sterling engine combo it wouldn't be difficult to do - because the air is in (figuratively speaking) infinite supply. You first gather the heat energy in steam, put that through a turbine along with the exhaust from the reaction, and then condense the steam inside of a sterling engine (gathers energy from the temperature difference between the steam and outside air). You could drive an electric generator with the turbine and another with the sterling engine to power a car or home as well as recharge batteries to continue the reaction.

As far out as this sounds, it isn't outside the laws of physics and it is possible with currently available technology. If you do a google for "aerogel" you'll find information on the greatest insulater of our time. The best form of this is not possible to mass produce at this time, but the basic form has been around for a long time in the cooler that you take camping. The most efficient electric engines work with 95% efficiency - that's only a 5% energy loss! If you put an electric engine inside of a wheel instead of using obsolete direct drive methods, varying the voltage to adjust speed, you save even more energy. You can find info on this by searching for "whispering wheel." Instead of braking, you press the pedal to turn on hydraulic pumps which take that stopping force and store it in a pressurized tank. Use that pressurized fluid to drive a tesla turbine at 90% or more efficiency and you just regained about 70% of the energy that you would have wasted stopping. While on the topic of tesla turbines, I should point out that it's a far superior turbine than conventional "fan" turbines, requiring less maintenance and accepting "wet" steam that would destroy a fan turbine.

I hope this has "denied ignorance" in some way, seemingly you understand what we're getting at now, Aelita.

EDIT:
I realized I forgot to respond to your claim of it being a ridiculous intermediate form of energy gathering.

I think pumping oil from the ground, refining it through a process so energy dependant that the government subsidizes the cost, and putting out so much pollution and environmental contamination during the process (nevermind the process of burning it in the end) is a terrible alternative to this "ridiculous intermediate process."

Just let that soak in.

[edit on 8/24/2004 by shbaz]

Well at least my thread has caused some fantastic discussion. Hopefully the mods could put this as a sticky so all those who are intersted in alternative fuels can continue posting.

Is anyone here planning on building the Engine mods I posted? I don't have the technical intelligence to build this stuff (or the money to test an engine).

So if someone could build this thing, it would be great to hear from you.

By the way, thanks for the Vote.

Originally posted by Ezekial
Well at least my thread has caused some fantastic discussion. Hopefully the mods could put this as a sticky so all those who are intersted in alternative fuels can continue posting.

Is anyone here planning on building the Engine mods I posted? I don't have the technical intelligence to build this stuff (or the money to test an engine).

Technically all you'd need is an engine already made for propane or CNG. My uncle has one. I still maintain that the carbon-electrolysis gas would be better because it's easier to store and mixes with air in a 1:5 ratio. That means less gas to store.

It turns out that I don't have any motors around, me being a City dweller with you real yard. Anyho, if anyone gets this to work, post the results up.

Originally posted by Aelita

No I don't. Nobody said Wright couldn't fly, and nobody said Edicon could not produce light by heating carbon fiber.

Oh yes they did!!! Engineers and scientists refused to go to Edison's house after hearing that he had around his house lit up with lights, saying it was hogwash. It took 5 years for the first member of the press to visit the Wright bro's and also for the first scientist to visit them. They refused to go because they were certain it was nonsense.. Scientific American published an article in 1905 suggesting that the Wright bro's flying was a hoax.

To me it would seem that it would require an VERY efficient machine to pull off HoD(Hydrogen on Demand), but I think it is possible. If we were to break it down, I believe we would need the following:

1.)Resonant water to Hydroxy-Oxygen system(filters, plates, containers, etc.)
2.)Either a consumable or non-consumable catalyst
3.)Small Battery bank
4.)Waste heat recovery(Thermoacoustic or Thermotunneling i.e. powerchips)
5.)Specific computer controlled systems
6.)Low weight to strength car frame/body/parts
7.)Possibly an optical rectenna or solar cells for collecting extra enviromental energy
8.)Energy saving lights(LEDs or OLEDs) and Air conditioning(Thermotunneling i.e. coolchips)

All these systems would need to function as harmonically as possible, and conserve electricity and heat. If these requirements are met I believe it is possible to run a car off of water, some of these technologies are a few years down the road, but will be coming out.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by Sigma]

Just a bump so people who are interested can see the topic and possibly help with a working model for review on ATS.

This site was talked about before but is related as well,I bookmarked this site about making hydrogen as a fuel
www.emergingtec.com... I have been watching this for a couple weeks now

Apparently a type of water powered vehicle was tested successfully in 1981. This site claims that BMW had a unit assembled in a 2000cc car which

Produced sufficient gas to power the engine continuously.

So has anyone tried to build any of this yet? I wait patiently.